Definition: The input is taken from a negotiation between two participants who take the role of campsite neighbors and negotiate for Food, Water, and Firewood packages, based on their individual preferences and requirements. Given an utterance and recent dialogue context containing past 3 utterances (wherever available), output Yes if the utterance contains the uv-part strategy, otherwise output No. uv-part is a selfish negotiation strategy. It is used to undermine the requirements of the opponent. For instance, suggesting that the opponent would not need more firewood since they already have the basic supplies or a suggestion that there might be a store near the campsite where the opponent can get the supplies instead.

Positive Example 1 -
Input: Context: 'Well maybe we can work something out between us.  Our food and water was in the bags they loss so I really need those.  Do you think you could make do with 1 food and some water?' 'I really need 2 foods. I can do with 1 water or if you are in a giving mood then maybe I can have 2 waters? 🙂' 'Looks like we both really need the food.  If you get 2 food I would need 1 food, 2 water and 3 firewood. '
Utterance: 'Since you will get all the fire would do you think I could have 2 foods and 2 waters. You would get 1 food, 1 water, and 3 firewood. 🙂 You seem like you are a great outdoor person that I would think you would be able to catch some fish to cook with the firewood. 🙂'
Output: Yes

Positive Example 2 -
Input: Context: 'Kindly understand our need as we are struggling with hunger now.'
Utterance: 'At the same from my side. We need foods because my child is hunger'
Output: No

Negative Example 1 -
Input: Context: 'I believe that we have the same priorities.  So we have a large family including children that need the food, but my wife also needs firewood due to poor circulation.  She is susceptible to frost bite and limb loss' 'Okay so how about one of us takes 2 of the food and 1 of the firewood, and the other takes 1 of the food and 2 of the firewood?' 'that sounds fair.  I will take 1 food, 2 firewood, and 2 water, thus giving you 2 food, 1 firewood, 1 water'
Utterance: 'Okay that works for me'
Output: Yes

Negative Example 2 -
Input: Context: 'my counter then is 2 water, 1 food, and 2 firewood for us and we are set 🙂' 'We're really going to need that extra firewood.  We'll need the heat source, but also for cooking.  It a big deal that I get the extra wood, I hope you will understand why I need it.' 'my people feel like they need 1 extra of something or else they will throw a fit ☹️'
Utterance: 'No fits!!  They're getting that extra water they really want.  I am sure they'll be OK with giving a group with kids a little extra firewood to make this camping trip awesome for them'
Output: No

Now complete the following example -
Input: Context: 'No I need extra food too. I cannot let my children starve and you cant let your children go thirsty. So if you cant agree to share the food i will walk away from the deal.' 'There is no point in walk away. This deal should be done mutually and beneficial for both. So its better I will take 2 food packages, you can take 1 food package, 2 water and 3 fire wood .Hope this will definitely work for you.' 'No i absolutely need 2 food packages and 1 water. How about we do it like this... You take 1 food package, 2 waters and 2 firewoods. Does that work for you?'
Utterance: 'Sorry to bother you, I don't need anything other than food package. So better you could give me 2 food package and take 3 water and fire wood. Please consider this deal.'
Output: 


Answer: No